Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Anti-Terrorism and the Death of the Chemistry Set

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Oct 31, 2007 09:06 PM
from the the-dark-side-of-phenolphthalein dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A recent unfortunate casualty of anti-terrorism laws is the home chemistry set. Once deemed the gift that saved Christmas, most Slashdotters probably remember early childhood experimentation with one of the many pre-packaged chemistry sets that were on the market. Unfortunately the FBI has decided that home chemistry sets are a threat to national security and they are rapidly disappearing from the market entirely. Those that remain are shallow boring versions of the old kits."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by yagu (721525) * <.yayagu. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:07PM (#21191777) Journal

    You do know the government is just trying to take care of us, right? Heck, I got the warm fuzzy long ago when Claritin-D, technically an OTC drug would only be sold from behind TC, and then only if you present picture identification, and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days! Of course, if it isn't in stock when you want to purchase, you're out of luck... but you're being taken care of. (If you didn't know, the government was/is protecting us from the proliferation of meth labs with this inane process... not that I've noticed much evidence meth labs have disappeared. I have been a lot more congested though.)

    Surprised chemistry sets didn't go this route long ago, what with their potential to put together explosives approaching that of a couple firecrackers combined! Warm fuzzies.

    I hate to rant about good intentions, but these don't even smell like good intentions any more. Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets.

    • by Original Replica (908688) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:21PM (#21191857) Journal
      The reason we see such an erosion of our freedoms is that Freedom and Trust go hand in hand. Some of that trust is to be responsible (gun safety), and some of that trust is to respect life and civil society (not a terrorist). That trust is gone, not only between the government and the people, but between neighbors. We wouldn't need all of this "think of the children" shit, if neighbors actually knew and trusted each other. We wouldn't have the highest prison population in the world if the government trusted the people.
      • by Usquebaugh (230216) on Thursday November 01 2007, @12:34AM (#21193225)
        You small minded, ignorant fool.

        Freedom has nothing to do with trust. Freedom is that which you grant yourself. Nothing can take your freedom unless you capitulate. Of course you can debate that without life freedom is meaningless but life without freedom is not worth living. I mean true freedom not some legally imposed cage that you deem large enough.

        The government should continually live in fear of the people. It only exists because the people allow it and fund it. The current state of affairs in the US is one of the saddest in recorded history. A country built on the ideals of freedom and liberty is being destroyed. Not as Orwell predicted by an over bearing state but rather as Huxley predicted because the citizens do not care about anything except being entertained. The collapse of Rome will be nothing compared to the implosion of the United States.

        Understand this, the current situation is preciseley because the government does not fear the people. They have shown themselves to be cowards and sheep afraid even to ask questions let alone think of answers. Think back to how Bush et al obtained power. Think about 10% of the population owning 90% of the wealth. Think about what the constitution says of government and how government has undermined the constitution at evey oppurtunity. Trial without peers, lawyers, due process, habeous corpus. etc. etc.

        And you, parrot some trite shite you probably heard on PBS. Freedom and trust go hand in hand, I'd call it moronic except morons know better.

        • by MrKaos (858439) on Thursday November 01 2007, @02:47AM (#21193803) Journal

          Not as Orwell predicted by an over bearing state but rather as Huxley predicted because the citizens do not care about anything except being entertained. The collapse of Rome will be nothing compared to the implosion of the United States.
          Especially with China patiently waiting for it to happen.

          Yet Another Benjamin Franklin Quote (YABFQ)...

          "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

          The corporatisation of America has played a big part, the question is, Is there a way back? What will make the average person decide to stand up for their freedom when all they have to do is vote, not die or fight, just understand the issues and vote. War used to be a thing the entire nation had to make a sacrifice for, now it's a distraction funded by other countries in the form of loans.

          Clearly your comments illustrate that you are a rational person, with the ability to sense reality for what it is. That is why you will be one of the first sentenced to sedition and shot. Of course that reminds me of YABFQ...

          We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

      • by McFadden (809368) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:29AM (#21193509) Homepage
        I think your comment indirectly says it all. America, land of liberty, where it's dangerous to buy a child's chemistry set, but an enshrined right to buy a gun.
        • by weighn (578357) <weighn.gmail@com> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:38PM (#21191999) Homepage

          if the government trusted the people.
          why should the government treat it's people any different from the way from the people treating the government?
          What goes around, comes around.
          OK, I'm confused. Don't you guys, the shining light of Global Democracy, have a saying regarding governance "By the people, for the people"?
          • "By the people, for the people"?

            I prefer the following quote by Thomas Jefferson - "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

            Also "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither." which is attributed to either Jefferson or Franklin, depending on where you find it.

            Both are very very applicable to the current state of affairs.
            • by MrKaos (858439) on Thursday November 01 2007, @03:17AM (#21193891) Journal
              The devil is in the detail, I agree with your sentiment though totally appropriate today.

              * Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

              o This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thofe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchafe a little Temporary Safety, deferve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
              But just as relevant and far more recent is something John.F.Kennedy said

              Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
              He knew back then how afraid governments and the power elite are of a population properly educated and motivated, which is why both are being disassembled today.
              • by hackstraw (262471) on Thursday November 01 2007, @07:49AM (#21195103) Homepage
                TJ: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

                Slashdot guy: This tends to be the eventual result when a government goes down the path of tyranny (or at least what a significant portion of the population believes is tyranny).

                I know this is controversial, but I believe that McVeigh to be a patriot/tyrant who actually was better for the people than its popularly believed. Kinda like how parasites/plagues are good for a population. Its complicated.

                With the Oklahoma bombing thing, its interesting that there are absolutely zero changes in anything that specifically led to that bombing. Its just as easy today to get rental vans, diesel and fertilizer than it was before this incident.

                However, today, its much more difficult to travel on a plane or to buy a chemistry kit.

                Now, lets think about what is different here. The government can implant tyrany and fear into more people via travel restrictions and chemistry kits than they could ever do with rental vans, dieslel, and fertilizer.

                So, in summary, the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks were a net gain for the government, and the Oklahoma terrorist attack was a net gain for the people.

                Kinda screwed up, now isn't it?

          • by arodland (127775) on Thursday November 01 2007, @03:23AM (#21193911)

            OK, I'm confused. Don't you guys, the shining light of Global Democracy, have a saying regarding governance "By the people, for the people"?
            Yes. It's a fantastic lie and pretty much always has been. Democracy, as practiced in the real world, isn't a way to give power to the people. It's a way to give token power to the people, in order that those in positions of real power can draw more and more of it to themselves without also drawing complaint.

            I mean, really, just look at the awesome power of the voting public. In a country where two-thirds of the population feel that the "leader of the free world' is doing an unsatisfactory job, we have the power to
            • Elect a bunch of incompetent nitwits (and some as-yet-undiscovered evil bastards) to the legislature to replace a crop of more competent types, on the grounds that an ineffective government will at least screw you more slowly;
            • Suffer quietly for years, waiting for the opportunity to choose from among two carefully-groomed replacements, one of whom is hopefully more acceptable than the current leader -- at least, to 50.01% of the people (less if you factor in the "electoral college" system of electing a US president which says you really only need the support of twenty-some percent of voters to win),
            • But given a field that narrow, we can't expect to find anyone we support on a broad range of issues. Instead, it's critical to rabidly focus on a single hot topic.
            • Bah, who am I kidding? It's not about issues, it's about character.
            • And by character, I mean the right clothes, a winning smile, and never giving a frank opinion within earshot of a tape recorder. Oh, and I hear lapel pins are a biggie.

            A method that would allow us to choose between more than two players would, of course, be too complicated for us wielders of Ultimate Democratic Power to comprehend, as would the possibility of making choices directly related to the issues at hand, instead of merely choosing the least-undesirable candidate and hoping that he or she likes reading your letters. (Referenda don't solve the problem that many things shouldn't be legislated, but should instead be defined by custom and upheld by the community, but that gets even further afield...)
            • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday November 01 2007, @06:36AM (#21194627)
              You have the power to choose between more than two. It's called the primaries. Pick a party, get involved, pay attention to local politics, when in doubt, vote the In's out. That is the formula to make a difference. Oh yeah, even if your guy is the greatest, vote for his opponent after at the very least his second term. No matter how good they are, legislators should be replace at least every other term. Legislators are like fruit, keep them around too long and they start to rot.
        • Answer (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Morosoph (693565) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:55PM (#21192137) Homepage Journal

          why should the government treat it's people any different from the way from the people treating the government?
          Because the Government exists for the people. It has no other purpose. Asymmetry follows from that.
            • Re:Answer (Score:5, Insightful)

              by cHiphead (17854) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:58PM (#21192589)
              The framers of the US constitution were keenly aware that in a democracy, sometimes the tyranny of the majority would threaten the few and added protections as such, but failed to build strong enough protections into it for when the tyranny from a few would threaten the majority, as we have now.
        • by Garridan (597129) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:37PM (#21192429)
          Read the Declaration of Independence.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
          The people have zero reason to trust the government. The government exists to secure our rights, and it is the duty of the citizens of any democracy to keep an ever-watchful eye on the government. Damn right we don't trust the government. Love your country, love your fellow man, but for shit's sake, watch your back.
          • by zmollusc (763634) on Thursday November 01 2007, @02:18AM (#21193707)
            Is that how it goes in the states?
            UK Gov : We are nice and want to sort everything out for you.
            People : Hey, the media say you are nice! You got my vote.
            UK Gov : Hurrah!
            People : Hey, everything is still crap.
            UK gov : Look at picture of us being concerned whilst we line our own pockets.
            People : Things aren't improving.
            UK Gov : We will pay our friends a load of tax money to look concerned and talk on tv about the high level of concern.
            People : Nobody is actually doing anything constructive.
            UK gov : STFU! Look, a circus! And bread!
            People : Ooooh! Cool!
    • by Secret Rabbit (914973) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:34PM (#21191969) Journal
      I disagree. I think that terrorists very much care about chemistry sets.

      They care that they aren't offered and they care that people are pissed about it. They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much. They definitely care. They care that the US is becoming a more and more demoralized nation and the educated are having to fight less and less fights that matter and about more and more like this. They care that the people that think are being distracted and rendered useless. Because with them out of way, and with the idiots that are in power today, the current situation will favour them more and more and...

      Take care of the thinkers of tomorrow, take care of the thinkers of today and take care that the terrorists are very very happy about this.
      • by GuyverDH (232921) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:03PM (#21192185)
        Don't forget, that now even Jr. High School students in the US are being asked to declare their Majors so that they can be narrowly channeled into their chosen field of study.

        Sorry, you wanted to be a mechanic, no home economics for you. Or, oh... too bad you selected accountant, now you can't get that particle physics minor you so badly wanted.

        Today's government wants all knowledge compartmentalized so that no one, and I mean no one, outside of the government can get the clear picture of what's going on.

        Want to get into a hobby? It had better be along the lines of what you went to college for, otherwise they'll start to watch you on suspicion of being a terrorist. Showing an interest in an activity outside of your major, oooh - watchout, you've made the FBI's watch list again.

        Jack of all trades are a dying breed. Specialization guarantees that the government is the only entity that really knows what's going on, just the way they want it to be.

        Just think, if the government had started down this path 20 years ago, most of us would be specialists who grunt when someone talks about something that we didn't go to school for. Or worse yet, we'd call the cops if someone tried to teach us something outside of our specialty.

        This is how periods of history like the dark ages start. By restricting knowledge so that the masses are not allowed to be fully educated, you guarantee that knowledge will begin to stagnate (only when certain types of knowledge intermingle with others are truly radical discoveries usually possible), and eventually disappear, sometimes forever.

      • by Technician (215283) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @11:58PM (#21193035)
        They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much.

        With the internet, the kids curiosity is being fulfilled more often than not. The problem with the internet isn't the lack of information. It is the dilution with distractions. Kids are more likely to spend time on myspace than on one of the science pages. There is more information online now than was ever accessible when I was a kid.

        The internet is the great equalizer. I remember the old chemistry sets of the 1969's. They were pretty boring with a few things that changed color and kept matches from burning and such. Online the high power learning is great. I can now find the information to build rockets from Salt Peter and powdered sugar, how to mix explosive gasses (Spud guns propane air mix), create fun reactions (Mentos and coke) (sodium and water) and lots of other fun stuff I couldn't do with the chemistry set of the 60's. Some stuff that is too dangerous or illegal to do yourself, there are online videos for your enjoyment. There is more info in the following links than is in most chemistry sets.
        http://www.burntlatke.com/ [burntlatke.com]
        http://www.jamesyawn.com/candyrocket/ [jamesyawn.com]
        http://eepybird.com/dcm1.html [eepybird.com]
        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_kind_of_liquid_is_in_instant_cold_packs [answers.com]
        http://www.humeseeds.com/stump.htm [humeseeds.com]
        http://www.ufomind.com/area51/articles/1996/popsci_9604/ [ufomind.com]
        http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/ [theodoregray.com]
        http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/ [theodoregray.com]
        http://fullygeek.com/2007/01/20000-pounds-of-sodium-dumped-in-lake/ [fullygeek.com]

        Without a chemistry set, but with internet, I can find out where to buy components to build fireworks mortar shells, buy local explosive components (Nitride and oil) and such. It was the internet that taught me where to locally buy small amounts of Ammonium Nitrate and Salt Peter with no questions asked.

        A trip to the hardware store is now an adventure as I read the ingredients on the packages.

        I have learned more online than I could have ever learned from a chemistry set from the 1960's Not all is illegal or dangerous. Some is a lot of fun.
          • Have fun in your little made-up universe where the government comes to round you up and you manage to fight it off.

            In the real world, fascism is when the corporations and governments work as a single entity, and you can wander around with your fucking gun all you want. In fact, you'll have to wander around, because the government/corporations took your house and your car, and no one will hire you.

            At which point you'll be arrested, not as some big anti-government hero by jackboot thugs, but for stealing bread to live on, by a perfectly normal cop who's just doing his job, a job that absolutely no one except you disagrees with, so when you shoot and kill him you're getting the electric chair and no one thinks you're a hero at all.

            There are different types of totalitarian governments, and assuming a fascist one operates like a communist one is faulty. Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...they work with corporations to make sure 'the wrong sort of people' do not have any economic power, and do not have anywhere to peddle their ideas.

            Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane. They'll show up with a court order to evict you from your home because you failed to pay your mortgage, because pressure came from the top at your company to let you go. Or they'll just sue you and ruin your finances.

            America is not a bunch of tiny castles where, as long as you can hold off the invading armies, you will be fine. The idea that that is how the world works is astonishingly naive. Almost all the population of America lives in housing they do not fully own, they get food from places they do not control like the supermarket, they require operating in society for money to obtain said food and shelter, a society where economics are controlled by some very large players that can crush them like bugs.

            And a fascist state isn't going to 'assume control', you asshat. There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. We've got government officials and AT&T officers leaping back and forth between each other in an incestuous loop. Your government spying on you, sponsored by AT&T. It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. (And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.)

            Oh, and before you start ranting about gun control some more, be forewarned I'm against it. I'm just not stupid enough to think that the US government being slowly corrupted by business is something that can be fought off with gunpowder. Guns are useful to deter crime and to deter invasion. They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way.

            • by labnet (457441) on Thursday November 01 2007, @06:15AM (#21194563)
              I agree DynamicPhil, best friggin post all year.
              Hitler was a hero before people realised it was too late.
              America has only just started on the road to true fascism. First there will be the economic crash, and the enusing chaos and poverty.
              Thats been in the works since the 60's when the USA went off the Gold standard and became a fiat currency.
              You embraced globalisation, and your manufacturing has disapeared.
              Notice whats happening to your infrastructure, your dollar, your mortgages.
              Terrorism is the biggest con yet. USA does not have a terrorism problem. 9-11 was not done by Arabs with stanley knives.
              9-11 was the excuse to take away your freedom.

              Dynamic Phil is right, go make some noise.... but you know what.... it won't happen. While the general populace has food in their bellies and their mind numbing TV, nothing will change.

              • by hachete (473378) on Thursday November 01 2007, @03:24AM (#21193921) Homepage Journal
                really this is off-topic. The GP is referring to guns making you safe in a conceptual sense, as in Free. You have all the guns you want but that hasn't stopped any administration from suspending or, in Bush's case, destroying habeas corpus or tapping phones or whatever else illegal bullshit they're doing under the cover of executive privilege. In other words, unless you actually use the guns against the government you're pretty much a paper tiger, and, as another poster said, just another arsehole gun-owning nut-job.
    • by captainwisdom (1182145) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:34PM (#21191971)
      Bull, the chemistry sets were dumbed down long before 9-11. Anti-terrorism has nothing to do with it. It's all about chem-set manufacturers getting sued (by armies of trial lawyers) and the liberal nanny state "protecting" our kids.
        • There are still 100-in-1's out there, they're no less common (where I am) than they were when I was kid and first got one of them. Boy was that a lot of fun.

          Chemistry kits can be a lot more dangerous than a lot of other toys, give one of those old ones to a kid who doesn't know what they're doing and whose parents are too busy to spend any time with the kid and they're liable to injure themselves. That's the main reason they've been going out of style, it's pretty hard for little Johnny to hurt himself with a My First (Plastic with rubber spring tip) Hammer, or Pong, the Board Game (Seriously, can anyone here tell me they wouldn't buy that if it was a reasonable price?), but with a Chemistry kit there's probably a few ways they can injure themselves at min, and the law of probabilities shows how, no matter how low the probability of any kid hurting themselves is, some kid will, and some parent will sue.

          I mean, just look at what the article itself says, the author admits to having to evacuate his house because he was making free chlorine gas. Now tell me, what are the odds that any modern parent would just let something like that slide vs. suing the company for damages?

          Home Chemistry kits are going away, but not because of Anti-Terrorism laws. There are plenty of chemicals that you can get without a background check that will do some fun things, but they can also be quite harmful to you and since every toy has to be made so that little Johnny slow can use it without any chance of hurting themselves. I mean, you can make Thermite without using a single background-check needed ingredient (my friend did it once for fun, pretty cool), so why isn't that in the 'pathetic' chemistry kits? Oh right, because no parent would trust their kid with Thermite and would most certainly sue if their kid could make it and hurt themselves.
    • by myth_of_sisyphus (818378) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:12PM (#21192233)
      I was at the pharmacy when an old codger asked for some Claritin for allergies. He was obviously stuffed up.

      The pharmacist asked for a CA driver's license. He said he doesn't drive anymore but has his VA card. She wouldn't sell it to him. Said she had to put the CA driver's license number in the database. No other's allowed.

      A veteran of WWII or perhaps Korea couldn't buy a fucking harmless medication because he doesn't have the right ID? I couldn't fucking believe it... Was he going to go back to the old-folks home and set up a meth lab with a box of Claritin? Jebus fucking H goddamn shit.

      (This country disgusts me more and more. We should storm something in Guy Faulke's masks. )
      • by starX (306011) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @11:40PM (#21192933) Homepage

        (This country disgusts me more and more. We should storm something in Guy Faulke's masks. )


        Alternatively, you could, I don't know:

        1) Write your representative.

        2) Write your senators.

        3) Organize an issues based campaign

        4) Vote for someone who shares your point of view on an issue

        5) Run for office yourself.

        Look, all of it perfectly legal, and just as important, actually has a chance of succeeding. If you storm a federal building in any mask, you're just going to wind up dead or in prison.

        Or does that sound like too much work? Would you rather piss and moan about it on Slashdot? Might feel good for a moment, but it's all sound and fury signifying nothing.
        • by turing_m (1030530) on Thursday November 01 2007, @12:49AM (#21193313)
          Or you could do what actually works and use your own media network to influence people, systematically evaluate which candidates will vote the way you want them to, and fund/advertise the more pliant ones.

          You just need a few billion dollars to get the ball rolling. Good luck.
    • by Marful (861873) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:23PM (#21192301)
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - Colonial America sympathesizer William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783

      "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

      "Doctors have been caught using poisons, and those who falsely assume the name of philosopher have occasionally been detected in the gravest crimes. Let us give up eating, it often makes us ill; let us never go inside houses, for sometimes they collapse on their occupants; let never a sword be forged for a soldier, since it might be used by a robber." - ancient Roman educator Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, II, xvi
    • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:27PM (#21192331) Journal
      Surprised chemistry sets didn't go this route long ago, what with their potential to put together explosives approaching that of a couple firecrackers combined! Warm fuzzies.

      I hate to rant about good intentions, but these don't even smell like good intentions any more. Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets.


      Right! Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets. The Feds know this. First, chemistry sets were not banned, they were neutered. They were neutered long before 9-11. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with liability.

      I understand that it's cool to bash the president and blame Bush for everything. However, this is not one of those cases. This isn't Bush's fault. If anything, it's John Edwards, or at least lawyers. Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that slingshots are hard to find, because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, kid's hands.

      The people that are banning "dangerous" chemicals in chemical sets are the same people that forced MacDonald's to stop asking you if you wanted it "super sized", and the same people that are trying to ban you from smoking in a bar, or your car, and in your home, and outside... and so on. It's the same people who make planters put a label on a bag of peanuts that says, "danger, contains peanuts". It's the people that mandate seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These people are not conservatives (although there are some conservative nannies that say I can't drink beer in a bar after 2:00am). Nope! These are the same people that say things like "We are going to take things away from you for the common good".

      Googling "nanny state chemistry set" took me to this [nytimes.com] article from the NY times. It's in response to an op-ed piece about the removal of chemistry sets. The article date, May 13, 1999. About 2.25 years BEFORE 9-11 and BEFORE the War on Terror. So, please, stop blaming this on Bush or the War On Terror. This was happening long before any of that!

      From TFA:

      [Author's Note: This article is primarily a result of my frustration in trying to acquire a few hundred grams of potassium carbonate for an electrolyte solution.]
      I understand the author's frustration, but he should really know who's at fault before he passes blame. If banning chemsitry sets were about keeping dangerous chemicals out of the hands of terrorists, then Clorox bleach, Windex, and pool chemicals would have been banned with it.

      Sorry, but TFA is just plain wrong.
  • options (Score:5, Informative)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:07PM (#21191779) Homepage Journal
    The death of a certain type of chemistry set. There are a pretty wide number of sets available [amazon.com] including the specific kit mentioned in TFA (Chem C3000 [amazon.com]) and the reviews there both mention the difficulty in gathering some of the materials necessary to doing the expirements. I don't think it is just terrorism though. Terrorism, a litigious society, the war on drugs - I think any one alone would have probably been enough, and we've got all three.

    I wonder if this might signal an opportunity for some entrepeneur to develop a virtual chem lab. It's not exactly the same, but at least it would give kids an opportunity to learn and explore. It could also offer features you wont find in any real chemistry set. Nice graphics showing what is going on on a much lower level. A virtual professor to help out and explain. Tools and materials that are too expensive or that really would be too dangerous.
    • virtual chem lab (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:24PM (#21191881) Homepage Journal
      Sorry, thats far too sterile to really learn anything.

      Until you burn your fingers on a hot beaker, or smell the reults of your last failed ( or successful ) experiment that catches on fire or cracks the bottom out of your flask, you never really learn. Its all theory without that sort of 'real' experience..
      • by Pingmaster (1049548) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:24PM (#21192309)
        I can't agree with that more. I love tinkering with electronic gadgets, as a kid I used to take apart RC cars and make stuff with the motors. One of the first lessons I learned was to check for short circuits when I burned my fingers connecting a wire to a shorted battery terminal. I learned to wear safety goggles, and to pour chemicals carefully when I splashed a chem set experiment in my eye (that stung!). I learned to cut away from myself when I sliced my finger open while building a model car. You can't learn that sort of stuff from a virtual chem/electronic/modelling program. Besides, at an age where you learn best by getting your hands dirty, clicking a mouse just doesn't cut it.

        The excuse that 'Terrorists' use the chem sets for bombs and chemical warfare is ridiculous. If they are used for malicious purpose, it's more likely from your average neighbourhood punk kid making a smoke bomb or something similar. People wanting to cause REAL harm will be busy getting Ammonium Nitrate (fertilier) and Diesel (makeshift ANFO, a powerful explosive), or gunpowder, or Javex and Drano (cheap and easy way to get mustard gas) and causing all sorts of deadly havoc that way. one must wonder if DHS took the anarchist's cookbook a little too seriously..maybe next week, they'll be banning 3.25" floppies because you can embed match heads in them to cook floppy drives..
        • by Alchemist253 (992849) on Thursday November 01 2007, @04:42AM (#21194183)
          You are missing the point. I AM a chemist. I probably understand orbitals and electronegativity better than most on Slashdot, but I do not fault chemistry sets for not being so directly educational.

          At the age when kids would use chemistry sets (I started when I was about eight), so much underlying information is absent that it is unrealistic to teach real chemistry. You can't truly understand orbitals without quantum mechanics, which in turn requires linear algebra and multivariate calculus. So don't bother! When I played with a chemistry set I didn't understand pH or activity coefficients, but I still appreciated acid-base reactions. Nor had I ever heard of redox reactions or the Nernst equation, but electroplating was cool. Chemistry sets inspired me to study and learn at the meager level I could, and as I grew older and more knowledgeable they undoubtedly played a role in me going into science - and into organic chemistry in particular (with its heavy emphasis on experimental research).

          Chemistry sets are motivators, not educators. They have historically done for chemistry what "Star Trek" has done for physics.
    • Re:options (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jlarocco (851450) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:28PM (#21191923) Homepage

      No offense, but that's pretty lame. Chemistry sets are fun because they're hand on.

      This is just getting ridiculous. I can go down the block and fill my car with 30 gallons of highly flamable/explosive gasoline, but chemistry sets are off limits because they contain a few ounces of potentially dangerous chemicals? Our government is officially retarded.

      • Re:options (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:48PM (#21192075) Journal
        I had several chemistry sets as a kid and spent many, many hours conducting experiments, often to my own harm (poisonous gases, chloral hydrate, etc...:-) High school chemistry almost got me arrested, and led in part to my expulsion from public school.

        And this is the problem. It's not terrorism that is causing these things to disappear. It's the fact that we've become a nanny state, and it's not conservatives that are the cause! You can't get toys for your kids that may have pointed edge. You can't get toys for your kids that may fit down a wind pipe or break off into sharp pieces. This isn't because of GW Bush, it's because of lawyers. Any time a kid gets hurt by a toy, the company gets sued into oblivion, whether it was the company's fault or not! It becomes cheaper to settle out of court for $100,000 than it does not fight it out.

        Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that sling shots are hard to find. It's not because they present a terrorism threat, it's because they are dangerous. The first time some kid mixes something that he wasn't supposed to makes an explosive, corrosive mixture that "puts an eye out", the company that made that kit gets sued. If it were about terror, this would be an article about how hard it is to find good pool chemicals!

        It's the same nannies that want to tell you that you can't smoke in your house, or you can't have a big mac or supersize your fries. These people don't usually tend to be conservatives. It's happens to be the people that say things like, "we are going to take things away from you for the common good."
        • Re:options (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SageMusings (463344) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @11:41PM (#21192941) Journal
          My personal feeling is good chemistry sets are hard to find because....people aren't buying them. They cannot compete with an X-box or Playstation. Don't forget today's children have incredibly short attention spans and scholarly pursuit is the hallmark of a pariah in many circles.

          In short, I think it is simple economics. If kids developed a craze for chemistry, manufacturers would most assuredly find a way to sell advanced sets, lawyers be damned. If we can give johnny a hunting rifle (we can), we can give him a Bunsen burner. All you need is demand. Also don't forget many parents today are the same mouth-breathers you sat next to in class years ago. Why would these people seek science toys for their kids when many barely got out of high school?
  • by ayelvington (718605) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:10PM (#21191793) Journal
    Check out http://www.unitednuclear.com/ [unitednuclear.com] and build your own. Amazing stuff your mother wouldn't let you have. a
  • by machinelou (1119861) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:16PM (#21191821)
    Mr. Wizard wasn't interested in "educating" youth, he was trying to build an army for his own jihad!
  • Chemistry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bloosqr (33593) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:22PM (#21191865) Homepage
    Its interesting, this was the subject of the first episode of "Wired Science" a new PBS episode. I can not agree more w/ the premise. The unfortunate part of what makes it even worse I think is due to terrorism/columbine etc even looking up this stuff will get scrutiny that wasn't really the case back when we were all kids. As an example of this I get the impression that from the press "peroxyacetone" is now unfortunately used by terrorists all the time (in fact that was the absurd uncomprehensible basis for the "no liquids" on planes).

    What was interesting about the Wired Science show was that show bemoaned the fact that chemistry sets are watered down but the show had a chemist talk about how dangerous using nonlaboratory conditions to run one of the "old school" experiments were.

    The irony of it was in this show that was going on about "dangerous" chemicals was that "dangerous" chemical was actually NI3 one of the standard things kids used to make all the time.

    On a personal note, I was one of those kids who was a total pyromaniac in high school / middle school, we eventually grew out of it of course, but we pretty much made everything one could easily get a hold of and then some. All of this was done in using "household" chemicals (and some ordering from chemical supply companies). The practical upshot of being a complete pyromaniac in was I ended up getting my undergraduate degree in chemistry/CS and getting a Ph.D. in chemistry and now am a faculty member (in physics randomly enough). At the end of the day it was "blowing stuff up" that made science cool, perhaps a little dangerous, perhaps even foolhardy but the fact that you could do so much w/ everyday chemicals sparked that interest in science, atoms and plain old tinkering ..

  • Amateur Rocketry RIP (Score:5, Informative)

    by SirDrinksAlot (226001) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:23PM (#21191879) Journal
    Amateur Rocketry is now dead too. I remember going out to pick up a couple engines and found out about the new (impending) restrictions. The government pretty much handed the terrorists their victory and hobby science is one of the victims.
    • by thegrassyknowl (762218) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:35PM (#21191977)
      Amateur rocketry was dying anyway. I remember trying to buy rocket engines when I was a bit younger (~10 years) and you already needed to provide photo ID with your current address on it. I gave up on that day, as did a lot of people because you can't even find rocketry supplies in the local model store anymore.
  • by Pedrito (94783) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:24PM (#21191885) Homepage
    I was lamenting the passing of the hobbiest chemistry sets long before 9/11. You can still get them in various places and you can get a fairly wide selection of chemicals from a number of sources, including e-bay. Hell, I even bought some concentrated (70%) nitric acid off of e-bay not more than a year ago.

    That said, the decline in hobby-level chemistry sets, as I mentioned before, began with the rise in the "new American Dream." You know, the one where you sue somebody for a million dollars. Liability for selling chemistry sets is, without a doubt, astronomical in these days of knee-jerk litigation... Nobody in their right mind would sell something to children that they could easily kill or wound themselves with, quite easily...

    From my own personal history, when I had a chemistry set as a child, it came with glass tubing and an alcohol burner. You used it to heat the tubing and bend it into shapes to connect beakers and what have you together... Well, not being old enough to know better, and not patient enough to wait for the tubing to cool down on its own after bending it, I decided it might be best to cool it off in some water. I consider it fortunate I didn't lose an eye when the glass exploded. And that didn't involve any chemicals... Not that the stuff they provided was terribly dangerous, but it's dangerous enough that it's simply not a viable business anymore, is my point...
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:26PM (#21191903)
    I can only believe that Tinkertoys will be next.

    They burn if ignited.
    They can cause physical injury if someone is stabbed with one, or has a hub thrown at them from close range.
    They can be assembled into a gun that might look too realistic if viewed under poor conditions.

    Got to get rid of this stuff now. Leave the kids ignorant of any toys that might actually teach them critical thinking by doing.

  • by Belacgod (1103921) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:29PM (#21191931)
    The thought behind this is the same as the one behind Germany's banning of certain computer security tools, and the assaults on cryptography. Dangerous tools exist in every important field, and those with no fear of falling behind will always want to ban more and more. We need another Sputnik moment to galvanize the angry reactionaries to demand more science instead of demanding more childproofing.
  • I've seen this trend for a while, and it predates 9-11.

    I believe the issue is more of a "legal" than "security" issue. I think the high risk of lawsuits is what's killing these kits. In the old days, if you let your kids be unsupervized and they started eating the chemicals - you were considered a bad parent with a stupid kid. Now days, parents tell the kids to eat the chemicals in hopes of a winning lawsuit so they don't have to work anymore.

    How many classic toys have gone the way of the dino because of our stupid frivolous legal system and lack of responsibility culture. I mean, Burger King/McDonald's (one of the two) had these flying princesses. They spin, their wings fly out and they whirl into the sky like helicopters. "Recalled and banned!" Why? Because they're uber dangerous. The fly toy might just land on the child's head. We can't have that. (Not like a baseball isn't a 100x more deadly - but we're not going to ban those.)

    Bah...this plan deserves to be turned into an intergalactic entranceway.
  • I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordgeek (112599) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @10:36PM (#21192423) Journal
    Are chemistry sets getting crappier? Of COURSE they are! When I was growing up in the 1970s, the best I could get was a pale imitation of the ones my dad had in the garage. Now we're a generation along, and the ones I had look like danger waiting to be used. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the obsessive culture of safety.

    TFA is a big, steaming pile of shit. Read it carefully, and you'll find there's not a single 'explanation' of why things are the way they are that holds water.

    It's just a grumpy twit with a computer. Nothing to see here.
    • Re:all the fun stuff (Score:5, Informative)

      by Z0mb1eman (629653) on Wednesday October 31 2007, @09:51PM (#21192103) Homepage
      Ah well, there's always mail-order.

      Well... no, there isn't really. A good friend of mine who IS a rocket scientist (aerospace engineer, anyway) is a long-time rocket hobbyist and is now tinkering with propulsion systems in his garage. Don't get him started on ordering hobby rocket engines above a certain size, any kind of fuel ingredients, and even certain parts from the States over the last couple of years (we're in Canada, and apparently you can't find a lot of this stuff locally to start with).